[0:00] shop, we have invited our good friend
[0:02] Whitney Ward
[0:04] who has come to Cache Valley on multiple
[0:05] times from VCBO. And the reason I I
[0:09] really wanted to have Whitney here is I
[0:12] am on the steering committee. Mark has
[0:13] been to a couple of the steering
[0:14] committee meetings, as has George and
[0:16] Kurt. And there's there's been a lot of
[0:18] circular conversations. And um I don't
[0:22] know that I at some point the goal is
[0:27] that they might have a consensus that
[0:29] they think would work for the county
[0:31] that they would bring to us to vote to
[0:32] put on the ballot. That would be the
[0:34] final That would be the final step. And
[0:37] I'm not even sure that will happen, but
[0:39] I wanted everyone else to be informed
[0:41] and to to be able to ask questions and
[0:43] to hear kind of what the conversations
[0:45] have been around the study that VCBO did
[0:48] and what where it's kind of morphed into
[0:50] cuz it's it's kind of got legs of its
[0:52] own, right? So, I'm going to turn some
[0:55] time over to Whitney and um
[0:58] let her kind of give us an overview and
[1:00] then you guys can ask questions and
[1:01] we'll just go from there.
[1:05] » Afternoon, Keegan and or not here to
[1:07] >> They're out of town. So is Keegan.
[1:09] Keegan's out of the country.
[1:11] And so I'm assuming Dave I know Dave
[1:12] will be here for council meeting night.
[1:14] He may show up at some point. He didn't
[1:15] tell me he wasn't coming.
[1:17] So.
[1:19] >> And I have a lot of information and I
[1:21] can go as quickly or as slowly as you
[1:23] guys would like.
[1:24] >> an hour, so.
[1:25] >> Perfect. So, I did want to as Sandy
[1:28] mentioned give you an overview of the
[1:30] process since we have a little bit more
[1:31] time than a typical
[1:33] uh council meeting and talk to you about
[1:36] where
[1:37] we're in the middle of a cycle, right?
[1:39] We're sort of circling and where we're
[1:40] circling and what the conversations have
[1:42] been and then go through some of our
[1:45] work to date. And ultimately, I think
[1:48] we're honing in on a recommendation, but
[1:51] we would love to hear the thoughts of
[1:53] the council as we work towards this.
[1:57] And so, uh
[1:59] you know, typically these processes
[2:01] start with information gathering. We do
[2:03] some visioning work. We develop a range
[2:05] of concepts. We work together to
[2:08] synthesize a preferred alternative, and
[2:10] then we finalize and and put a lot of
[2:13] meat behind that sort of alternative.
[2:15] And in this project, that is also kind
[2:18] of that gap between concept development
[2:20] and synthesis is the variation between
[2:23] phase one and phase two in our contract.
[2:25] And um as we've been going through this
[2:27] process,
[2:29] um and I'll just jump right to the next
[2:31] one. There's been some circling. We
[2:33] think we come to a preferred
[2:34] alternative, and we develop it, and
[2:36] people get excited about it, and then
[2:38] there are concerns, and then we sort of
[2:40] circle back again, and look at another
[2:42] preferred alternative, and develop it.
[2:44] And so, we're kind of cycling in this
[2:46] middle between phase one and phase two,
[2:50] where we've done a lot of work in
[2:52] gathering information, and we'll talk
[2:53] through that survey. We've developed
[2:56] numerous concepts, looked at a lot of
[2:58] different sites and site alternatives.
[3:01] We've dove into the financials on a
[3:03] number of those different concepts to
[3:04] better understand them.
[3:06] And ultimately,
[3:09] you know, this it's a little bit of a
[3:11] challenge, and you'll see this come out,
[3:13] but
[3:15] there are a lot of reasons to like
[3:16] different options,
[3:18] right? And so, while there is a
[3:21] preferred alternative that really checks
[3:23] all of the boxes, the challenge with
[3:24] that alternative as we get into it is
[3:25] that it's the most expensive
[3:26] alternative, which makes it less viable
[3:29] for the community. And so, we'll talk
[3:30] through the pros and cons and
[3:31] considerations of all of those options
[3:33] together. But we haven't quite, as Sandy
[3:36] said, come been able to come to
[3:37] consensus on an alternative in the
[3:39] committee, but we're working through
[3:41] those options together.
[3:44] So, just as a reminder on the
[3:45] information gathering phase, we did do a
[3:48] very robust community survey, and we did
[3:52] it in two parts. We started with the
[3:54] South Valley survey. We then did the
[3:56] broader Cash County survey. We looked at
[3:58] those responses in tandem because the
[4:01] South Valley didn't respond in high
[4:03] numbers to the Cash County one because
[4:05] they'd already taken the survey and we
[4:07] had told them that. So, we did do a
[4:09] swath through. We did get over 10,000
[4:11] responses, which is an incredible survey
[4:13] response rate uh for a community this
[4:16] size. And of that, uh we generally heard
[4:20] that people are very interested in uh
[4:24] county supported indoor recreation.
[4:26] There's a consistent number of about 7%
[4:29] of people who don't want it. They it's
[4:31] too expensive, they don't feel like it's
[4:33] the role of the government. There's a
[4:35] range of reasons that they don't feel
[4:37] it's appropriate, but the vast majority
[4:39] of people are generally interested in
[4:43] recreation. Now, that dips a little bit
[4:46] when we go into how many people are
[4:48] willing to support a tax increase to
[4:50] help pay for it, and that drops down to
[4:52] 84%, but still a pretty high number.
[4:55] Now, this was a self-selected survey, so
[4:57] it's important to note people who are
[4:59] interested in it or against it usually
[5:00] come out and let their voices be heard,
[5:02] and those who are maybe in the middle or
[5:05] don't have the time, aren't as
[5:06] interested, may not take the time to
[5:08] respond to the survey. So, that's
[5:09] important to keep in mind.
[5:11] >> Bryson, can you turn off the chandeliers
[5:13] in the middle? I don't I can't remember
[5:15] which one that is.
[5:16] There we go. Now we can see it. Thank
[5:18] >> And then as we look at responses to the
[5:21] survey, you can see we had good
[5:23] representation from across communities
[5:25] in the county.
[5:27] Um and so that gave us a good sense of
[5:30] where people are, what they're looking
[5:32] for,
[5:33] and what they're hoping to see.
[5:36] As we looked at priority programs,
[5:38] swimming and aquatics was the number one
[5:40] priority across the county. It just eked
[5:43] ahead of interestingly adult sports
[5:46] recreation and fitness. So, youth sports
[5:49] recreation and fitness came in third
[5:51] place by a narrow margin. Again, high
[5:54] interest across all three of those.
[6:00] As we asked people what they wanted to
[6:02] see for dry recreation,
[6:05] indoor court sports was the number one
[6:07] priority followed by open fitness areas,
[6:11] weightlifting, indoor dedicated track
[6:13] and walking area. So, that falls in
[6:15] line.
[6:16] Indoor courts, of course, run the gamut
[6:18] of ages, but
[6:20] youth and young adults predominantly and
[6:22] then the next three are more sort of
[6:23] adult oriented programs. With we often
[6:27] find indoor track and walking areas a
[6:29] strong priority in older adults.
[6:33] When we looked at community swimming
[6:36] pool interest,
[6:37] lap swimming and learn to swim were
[6:40] number one priorities and then a zero
[6:42] entry like
[6:44] a very shallow depth pool for young kids
[6:47] to play in was the third priority. And
[6:50] then the fun things, water slides and
[6:52] fitness classes, things like that came
[6:54] down the line there. But lap swimming
[6:56] and learn to swim followed by a space
[6:58] for young kids.
[7:00] And folks
[7:02] very much want indoor year-round pools
[7:05] when we asked what type of aquatics are
[7:07] important.
[7:09] And then we did look at community spaces
[7:11] and really they're just looking for sort
[7:13] of party rooms, small community event it
[7:16] sounds like you guys have a good
[7:17] assortment of community spaces available
[7:20] that folks are using.
[7:22] And
[7:23] one of the key questions we asked is how
[7:25] far people would be willing to drive for
[7:28] recreation. And the vast
[7:32] majority of respondents would like to
[7:35] have a recreation center
[7:37] under 15 minutes drive from their house.
[7:40] Now, some in the further community said
[7:42] we're willing to drive up to 20 minutes.
[7:44] We understand we're a little further
[7:45] away. Um
[7:47] and so there's a little bit of diversity
[7:50] in those numbers, but you can see the
[7:51] communities are pretty close in their
[7:53] responses.
[7:56] And again, when we asked if folks would
[7:58] support a tax increase to fund a new
[8:00] recreation facility, um the vast
[8:03] majority of respondents, um
[8:07] 66% said yes, they're likely to or very
[8:11] likely to. And then there's a little bit
[8:13] in the might or might not category of
[8:15] about 18% and those ones it's typically
[8:18] what's in it for me? Is there something
[8:19] I like? Is it close to home? Is it
[8:21] hitting my needs and criteria?
[8:23] >> So when you asked if they'd support a
[8:25] tax increase, did you give a dollar
[8:26] amount or percent amount?
[8:28] >> We asked
[8:29] and we did get a dollar amount from
[8:31] those who responded. And the mean was
[8:34] $20 a month. The average was about $15 a
[8:37] month.
[8:38] And so that equates to approximately
[8:40] 180, well, specifically $180 a year that
[8:43] folks were willing to pay
[8:45] as a tax increase. And we were pretty
[8:49] quite specific in the survey to note
[8:52] that this tax increase would not mean
[8:54] you get to go use the facility for free.
[8:56] That's always a question that it's a tax
[8:57] increase plus a fee to use the facility.
[9:00] Um and so that was that median $15 a
[9:05] month is what we've been looking at as
[9:07] we've gone through this process from
[9:09] that point.
[9:10] >> understand that the $15 a month is the build the facility.
[9:16] Is there another question where you
[9:18] explain that there would be also a
[9:20] monthly fee for users?
[9:21] >> We did note that, yes, in the survey. We
[9:24] did not ask them how much they'd be
[9:25] willing to pay for a month, but in this
[9:27] question about would you support a tax
[9:30] increase, we did note in addition to
[9:33] paying a membership.
[9:35] >> Okay, so that's the way it would be it.
[9:37] Would you you'd be paying a membership
[9:39] of
[9:41] some amount and you would also have a
[9:43] tax increase.
[9:44] >> Correct.
[9:45] I was very adamant about that.
[9:46] >> Yes, correct. Sandy was great and like
[9:49] we have to be very clear in what we're
[9:50] asking people so that they know that
[9:53] just by paying their property taxes
[9:55] doesn't mean that they automatically get
[9:57] to use the facilities for free.
[10:02] And so again, our key takeaways from the
[10:04] survey, swimming and aquatics are the
[10:05] number one priority followed by in close
[10:08] proximity youth and adult sports
[10:11] recreation fitness programs,
[10:13] indoor courts, indoor cardio and
[10:15] strength weightlifting areas, dedicated
[10:17] indoor track, and in some communities
[10:19] indoor fields, specifically the south
[10:21] half of the valley, were were the
[10:23] priorities in what we saw there.
[10:25] And again, the majority of the
[10:27] respondents are looking for new
[10:28] recreation and wellness center within 10
[10:30] to 15 minutes of their home.
[10:36] So the when we were here at the council
[10:38] last, there was also just a question
[10:40] about how often do these facilities get
[10:42] used and what how do we figure out how
[10:45] many memberships we're going to sell
[10:46] when we look at the operations of the
[10:48] facility. And so we pulled together some
[10:51] information from local annual budgets as
[10:55] well as a national database. So on the
[10:57] left is the natural date national
[11:00] average database that nationally 15% of
[11:04] residents have a pass
[11:07] a membership to a community recreation
[11:09] center.
[11:10] In Provo specifically, 16% of the of the
[11:15] population has some
[11:17] level of a membership plus they have 2%
[11:19] non-resident members as well.
[11:22] South Davis Recreation is 14% plus 2%
[11:26] non-resident members. Lehi City
[11:29] Recreation has 15% so they're right in
[11:31] line with national averages. Now, these
[11:34] are memberships, so they have a lot of
[11:36] other people who just come visit and use
[11:38] the facility for events, programs,
[11:40] activities, or day use passes, and
[11:43] that's that kind of total annual users
[11:45] at the bottom. So, Provo um recreation
[11:48] has 2.2 million annual users within
[11:52] their facility, and that's from their
[11:53] 2023 data.
[11:55] Um South Davis is lower at 600,000. Lehi
[12:00] is 363, so that means Provo is
[12:03] programming that thing like crazy
[12:05] outside of typical membership use. And
[12:07] you do see that in their They have a
[12:09] very low um
[12:12] or a very high return on investment.
[12:14] They're one of the only community rec
[12:16] centers that doesn't have a subsidy.
[12:18] They actually earn enough money to pay
[12:20] for their full operations, which is
[12:21] pretty rare.
[12:22] >> Can you say Go back.
[12:23] >> Yeah.
[12:24] >> When you say total annual users,
[12:26] 600,000.
[12:28] >> Those are clicks of people walking
[12:29] through the door.
[12:31] >> So, so in that instance, you're going to
[12:34] say somewhere around 2,000 users a day.
[12:38] >> Correct.
[12:39] Yeah, that's absolutely correct.
[12:44] And Smithfield recreation actually has a
[12:46] much higher percentage. They have 23% of
[12:48] their residents that are members, and 7%
[12:51] of additional members that are
[12:53] non-residents.
[12:55] Um and again, that speaks to the desire
[12:58] for indoor community recreation within
[13:01] the community.
[13:02] Um we did also get some great numbers
[13:05] from North Logan. Uh they're seeing
[13:07] 184,000
[13:09] They're serving 184,000 people through
[13:11] their programs, and that's um at the
[13:13] Hansen Sports Complex plus the sort of
[13:15] parks and recreation programming. So,
[13:17] they're already seeing a very high level
[13:19] of usership with the limited facility in
[13:22] the indoor fields. And again, um
[13:26] just looking national data
[13:28] about 25% of the US population is a
[13:31] member of a fitness center
[13:33] in some way, shape, or form. Um and 30%
[13:37] of those have memberships to multiple
[13:39] facilities. So,
[13:41] health, wellness, recreation is
[13:43] something that is generally invested in
[13:46] within our communities.
[13:48] >> Yeah.
[13:49] >> So, the Smithfield is part of
[13:52] the high school, right?
[13:53] >> It is attached to the high school.
[13:55] >> others are
[13:57] put together like that?
[13:58] >> It's very rare these days. Um
[14:02] right now, there are a handful of
[14:04] others, but we're seeing a trend where
[14:06] the school districts don't want
[14:08] community act to have access to their
[14:11] schools in the a way that's not
[14:13] controlled by the school and by the
[14:15] school district. And so, that is not
[14:18] something that we're seeing in new
[14:19] construction
[14:21] at all right now, but it is something
[14:23] that does exist in communities that did
[14:25] exactly what Smithfield did and said,
[14:27] "We have collectively a need for a pool,
[14:29] collectively a need for gymnasiums. Why
[14:31] don't we share those needs?" And so, you
[14:34] know, decades ago that was more common
[14:35] practice. It's less common practice
[14:38] today. And there's also some ongoing
[14:40] legislation that we're hearing about um
[14:42] in the state legislature that is sort of
[14:45] um
[14:47] cracking down on school safety and
[14:48] security. It's a big topic of
[14:50] conversation. And so, they're really
[14:52] trying to control who uses their
[14:55] facilities, who has access, and when,
[14:56] and how people have access to those
[14:58] facilities.
[14:59] >> That's too bad because the taxpayers are
[15:00] the ones who paid for the schools, too.
[15:02] Like that it's a I I can understand
[15:04] their need for your security, too, but
[15:06] there's a lot of facilities that we paid
[15:08] for that sit empty.
[15:10] >> And there are very complementary hours
[15:12] of use. Typically, recreation centers
[15:14] are early morning and then late
[15:16] afternoon, evening, and weekends, right?
[15:18] And so, there's there's a lot of logic
[15:20] behind that approach, but also just a
[15:23] trend, unfortunately, a little bit away
[15:25] from it.
[15:30] Any other questions on the sort of
[15:33] information gathering before we jump
[15:34] into facility options? Yeah.
[15:37] >> So, you state that there's 10,397
[15:40] respondents, right?
[15:41] >> Yep.
[15:42] >> We have a
[15:44] population of around 145,000,
[15:47] so that's about a 7%
[15:50] draw.
[15:50] You consider that good compared to
[15:52] others?
[15:53] >> I do consider that good.
[15:55] Yeah. So, often times when we do surveys
[15:58] like this, we'll see somewhere between 3
[15:59] and 5%. So, we were excited about the 7%
[16:03] response rate.
[16:06] » And And the part of this phase two,
[16:08] didn't that have a statistically
[16:12] There was a different kind of a survey.
[16:14] >> Yeah, so
[16:15] >> been done yet, correct?
[16:16] >> Correct. So, we had budgeted in phase
[16:18] two to have a company, uh, Y2 Analytics
[16:21] is their name. They have a list of
[16:25] registered voters that they reach out to
[16:27] specific demographics of different
[16:29] voters in different communities to do a
[16:31] very targeted voter-based survey. Um,
[16:35] and that was something that was
[16:37] anticipated with our phase two work in
[16:39] the conversations that we've been having
[16:41] with the steering committee. Folks
[16:44] worry that that's still not
[16:45] representative. And so, the discussion
[16:47] has been, can we find something to put
[16:49] on the ballot, if it's the right thing
[16:51] to put on the ballot, to really see how
[16:54] communities feel. Now, there's an equal
[16:56] concern that if we don't put the right
[16:57] thing on the ballot, it will skew
[16:59] potentially the perspective of what
[17:02] people are interested in within the
[17:04] community. And so, there's been a lot of
[17:05] conversation back and forth, but that is
[17:07] still absolutely an option on the table
[17:10] if we wanted to do a statistically or a
[17:12] vote a more statistically valid
[17:14] voter-based survey, we have that option.
[17:21] So, when we came to you last, we were
[17:24] looking at three different facility
[17:26] distribution options.
[17:28] The one larger centralized facility, the
[17:31] two options north-south, and the three
[17:33] options north-south and center. Now, at
[17:35] that point, we were talking about
[17:37] potential
[17:38] >> What are your mics? Sorry.
[17:40] >> Oh, you're okay.
[17:42] >> This is a recorded meeting.
[17:43] >> Oh, okay.
[17:44] At this point, we were talking about
[17:46] these through the lens of potential
[17:48] recreation districts. We've since
[17:51] shifted our conversation to say,
[17:53] you know, a a best-case scenario
[17:55] financially for the county would be a
[17:57] county-based bond um that would
[18:01] have buy-in from all of the residents in
[18:03] the county. So, these diagrams in our
[18:05] last meeting, we've kind of gotten rid
[18:07] of the yellow lines moving forward, and
[18:10] we're looking at how we might distribute
[18:11] facilities within the county, and how
[18:13] those can best serve the needs of the
[18:15] county moving forward.
[18:20] And so, uh we did put together some
[18:23] preliminary concepts. We've put together
[18:25] capital construction costs for those
[18:27] concepts, and we've put together
[18:29] operational cost estimates at a very
[18:31] high level. Now, these are, like I said,
[18:34] because we kind of keep cycling between
[18:36] phase one and phase two, we have not
[18:37] done a deep dive into any one of these
[18:40] options, but we have done an analysis
[18:42] for all three of them to help us with a
[18:44] comparison and a discussion.
[18:48] Um that's, you know, a good
[18:50] disclaimer and draft statement on there.
[18:53] Um we did note that right now, from a um
[18:59] sort of national perspective, you may
[19:01] not need more than one aquatic center
[19:04] within the community based off of your
[19:05] population. However, we've heard very
[19:07] clearly from the steering committee and
[19:09] from the survey that everybody wants
[19:10] aquatics. And there is a concern that if
[19:12] you build a pool in one location and you
[19:14] don't build a pool in another location,
[19:17] then that may not be a successful
[19:19] um attempt to meet the recreation needs
[19:22] within the community community. So, you
[19:24] will see that all of our options do
[19:26] include aquatics at some level.
[19:29] It was also noted that the current
[19:32] Eccles ice sheet is very highly
[19:34] utilized, and eventually it should be
[19:36] added on to. That need is not a driving
[19:38] need right now. So, there is space on
[19:41] the site to be able to add on to that,
[19:42] and that's what we would recommend is
[19:44] that instead of building another ice
[19:45] sheet somewhere else in the community,
[19:47] you take advantage of the resources that
[19:49] exist at the Eccles ice sheet, and
[19:51] ultimately build a new ice sheet in that
[19:53] site and location. So, you won't see ice
[19:55] on any of the options that we're talking
[19:57] about right now, either.
[19:59] Um and then we did note that there are
[20:01] just some things that you need to have
[20:02] in every facility again to hit the needs
[20:05] of every generation. So, those are the
[20:07] courts, the indoor walking jogging
[20:08] track, open fitness and equipment space,
[20:11] uh group fitness spaces, a party or
[20:13] community room, and then of course you
[20:15] need administration and locker rooms.
[20:17] So, you will see those consistently
[20:18] across all of the options.
[20:24] So, option one
[20:26] is the option that puts one facility in
[20:30] the in the county. And originally we
[20:32] thought, you know, let's put it up by
[20:34] where the ice and the Hansen Sports
[20:36] Complex are because then you have a
[20:38] colocation of amenities and programs and
[20:40] elements. But the challenge is we have
[20:43] heard that folks are tired of driving
[20:45] from the south end of the county up to
[20:47] that location. So, then we started
[20:49] looking at a range of other
[20:51] uh potential locations that are more
[20:52] centralized to the county.
[20:55] Um with that option, we looked at gosh,
[20:57] maybe six six different sites, which
[21:00] we'll talk about in just a minute. But
[21:02] this is kind of the concept that we put
[21:04] together for that central facility. It
[21:06] would have a more robust gymnasium
[21:09] component on day one with the ability to
[21:11] add indoor turf
[21:14] as needed in the future. It would have
[21:16] of course all of the fitness elements
[21:17] that we've talked about, an indoor pool
[21:20] for children, play feature for teens, as
[21:24] well as a competition sized lap pool.
[21:27] So, 25 yd 25 m with associated seating
[21:31] in it. Um
[21:33] Now, this one again, if you go forward
[21:36] with the one facility within the county,
[21:38] we would say build the field house on
[21:40] day one. Um if we look at options with
[21:43] other facilities clustered in with this,
[21:45] maybe the field house becomes less of a
[21:47] driving priority. So, there is a little
[21:49] bit of a square footage delta here.
[21:52] Um
[21:53] And then again, we did look at a range
[21:55] of different locations and we did drive
[21:57] time analysis. So, we have not picked
[22:00] any specific location, but we looked at
[22:02] drive times from a lot of them. The one
[22:05] that's up on the screen right now is
[22:06] from the fairgrounds. We said, what if
[22:08] we put this on the county fairgrounds,
[22:09] what would access and accessibility look
[22:11] like within the county? And you would
[22:13] hit 70 to 75% of the population within a
[22:17] 15-minute drive depending on traffic and
[22:19] conditions.
[22:22] And we looked at a number of
[22:23] alternatives. We sort of said, you know,
[22:25] 10th West makes a lot of sense from an
[22:28] access and accessibility perspective,
[22:30] and the numbers just don't change
[22:31] dramatically as we start to look at
[22:33] other other sort of sites in that area.
[22:38] So,
[22:40] this facility, and you'll see this in a
[22:42] little while, this is the most
[22:44] cost-effective option.
[22:45] You build one building, one building is
[22:47] staffed, there's it's managed in in one
[22:50] location. Um you get the best return
[22:54] because people are all going to this one
[22:56] facility to serve the needs of the
[22:58] county, but ultimately, we don't feel
[23:01] like it's meeting the needs of the
[23:03] county because access and accessibility
[23:06] and local community-driven
[23:08] um
[23:09] conversations are driving this. And we
[23:12] feel like one facility, one central
[23:13] facility, is going to make some people
[23:16] feel perhaps disenfranchised or like
[23:18] their needs aren't going to be met. And
[23:20] so this while the most cost-effective is
[23:23] not the one that we would lean towards
[23:24] as the most viable recommendation right
[23:26] now.
[23:29] » The discussion a lot of times was if
[23:31] that was put on the ballot that people
[23:33] outside of Logan probably would not it
[23:35] wouldn't pass.
[23:36] >> Right.
[23:37] >> Probably.
[23:38] >> And the the viability of passing is
[23:39] something that is a big part of the
[23:41] conversations with the steering
[23:42] committee cuz the steering committee is
[23:44] a group of folks who want this to be
[23:45] successful. They want it they want to
[23:48] see something happen. They've been
[23:49] hearing about it from their
[23:50] constituents. They've been trying
[23:51] independently to work through it, but
[23:54] they they would love to be in
[23:56] partnership with the county, but they
[23:58] want to make sure that whatever's put on
[23:59] the ballot has the best chance possible
[24:01] of passing.
[24:03] And so you'll hear the rest of this
[24:05] conversation about why it may or may not
[24:07] pass in our conversations.
[24:11] » Did any of your studies on these options
[24:14] consider that um it could be leased out
[24:17] on weekends or whatever to club sports
[24:19] or whatever so that there'd be some type
[24:21] of revenue and how does that
[24:23] >> Yes.
[24:23] >> affect things?
[24:24] >> And and we have some slides later on
[24:26] that talk about our operational analysis
[24:29] assumptions.
[24:30] Um that's a really big question in
[24:32] community recreation is what's the
[24:35] balance between leasing the space out to
[24:37] generate revenue versus having the space
[24:39] available to the community to meet the
[24:41] needs of the community. And admittedly
[24:43] on our operational analysis, we run them
[24:46] on the conservative side of having some
[24:49] leased operations, but typically outside
[24:51] of peak hours so that the spaces are
[24:53] available for the community when they
[24:55] need them most. So um let's say a Sunday
[24:58] for example or later in the evening or a
[25:00] portion would be leased out to a club
[25:02] space but not all of the gymnasiums
[25:04] leased out at one time for example.
[25:07] >> And of all the options that go inside of
[25:09] this facility, is not aquatics and
[25:12] swimming the most expensive one and
[25:14] >> It is.
[25:15] Correct.
[25:17] Yes.
[25:19] >> It is.
[25:21] And uh there may be partnerships for a
[25:26] competitive swimming pool but the rest
[25:28] of the aquatics, the youth activities,
[25:31] the the space for the kids, the space
[25:33] for community lap swimming, those are
[25:35] ones that are hard to find community to
[25:38] help contribute to.
[25:40] And so school districts are the ones
[25:41] that we often see as a funding partner
[25:44] for competitive pools and then that
[25:46] becomes an agreement of how do the
[25:48] dollars come in and how do they go out?
[25:49] Our recommendation is actually to lease
[25:52] the pools to the school districts versus
[25:55] having an upfront agreement and the the
[25:57] benefit of that is you get those lease
[25:59] dollars over time and those lease
[26:00] dollars can change.
[26:01] >> Well, tell the schools to make up their
[26:03] mind. Either partner with us or don't
[26:05] rent their
[26:06] >> [laughter]
[26:06] >> pools.
[26:06] >> They don't want us in their space but
[26:08] they want to use our they want us to
[26:09] build space for them.
[26:10] >> It doesn't make sense.
[26:11] >> So, lease it to them when they do want
[26:12] to use it. That's that's really the
[26:13] recommendation.
[26:14] >> Yeah, that makes sense.
[26:16] >> It it is. It's very hard. As we're
[26:18] looking at uh the next option and sorry
[26:20] I jumped over that very quickly. The
[26:22] next option is looking at two
[26:23] facilities, one on the north side of the
[26:25] county, one on the south side of the
[26:27] county. Now again, the specific
[26:29] locations of these have has not been
[26:31] determined but we have been looking at a
[26:33] couple of different potential locations
[26:35] flanking north and south.
[26:38] Um
[26:41] Both of these again want an aquatic
[26:43] center to some scale but we're
[26:44] recommending a reduced footprint of an
[26:46] aquatic center. So, as we look at the
[26:49] north side, again because the Hansen
[26:51] Sports Complex is up in North Logan,
[26:53] we're recommending gymnasiums be a
[26:55] priority over indoor turf. And we have a
[26:58] modest, but very functional pool that's
[27:01] being recommended. So, a zero-entry play
[27:03] component, a space that you can do a
[27:05] water aerobics, or you can set up a
[27:07] ninja course, or something fun. A
[27:09] basketball hoop for the teens, and then
[27:12] some lap lanes off to the side.
[27:15] Um again, you see the square footage
[27:17] drop. So, this one's running around uh
[27:19] just shy of 70,000 sq ft, but we've also
[27:23] planned, as we've looked at different
[27:24] options and alternatives, for growth.
[27:27] So, knowing that additional gymnasiums
[27:29] would likely be needed in the future,
[27:31] making sure there's a footprint for
[27:32] those. If aquatics does continue to grow
[27:35] in popularity, and there is a funding
[27:37] partner, making sure there's a way to
[27:39] grow an indoor competitive pool. And
[27:41] also, if the community is just yay pools
[27:44] all the time, space for an outdoor
[27:46] seasonal pool, as well.
[27:48] >> And one thing, Whitney, that is kind of
[27:50] a component that maybe will come in the
[27:53] meantime or later, but if this North
[27:56] Valley was near the current ice arena,
[27:59] there can be an exchange of heat to to
[28:01] heat the pool. Like, there could be some
[28:02] economies done with a North Valley
[28:05] location.
[28:06] >> And some cost savings associated with
[28:08] that. There's a lot of sort of um
[28:11] energy-based financing that by
[28:14] increasing the efficiency of the ice
[28:15] rink and tying it into the pool
[28:17] operations, there could be some dollars
[28:18] available. If that lo- co-location is uh
[28:22] benefit.
[28:25] Um
[28:27] So, this one Hold on, I went the wrong
[28:29] direction. Sorry, pardon me. North
[28:31] Valley.
[28:32] Uh we did look at a couple of different
[28:34] locations on the north side of the
[28:36] county. This one is specifically is
[28:39] looking at sort of that North Logan
[28:41] co-location. That would hit uh just over
[28:44] about 56% of the county population
[28:46] within a 15 minute drive, but you see
[28:49] that we're like by the time you get down
[28:50] to Providence, we're out into the 20
[28:52] minute drive. And so it's really not
[28:54] hitting again that that south side of
[28:56] the county, and some of the farther
[28:58] north communities are also in that 20
[29:00] minute drive distance.
[29:04] Um as we look at the South Valley,
[29:07] um again,
[29:09] here we've done
[29:11] limited indoor courts plus a small
[29:13] indoor turf component, so people have
[29:15] access to that indoor turf. The same
[29:17] pool that we're showing on the north
[29:19] side. We did just put a note here that
[29:22] Skyview and Mountain Crest currently
[29:24] have lap pools for competitive swimming.
[29:27] And so you do have that use kind of
[29:28] covered as long as
[29:31] I mean, it's perfect for the
[29:32] high school kids, right? The The place
[29:34] that it hits or misses the mark is on
[29:37] club competitive swimming. But again,
[29:40] you're not going to get as many dollars
[29:41] from a club component outside of
[29:44] a pool lease. And so we do want to make
[29:47] sure there's space on both of these to
[29:48] grow into a future competitive pool if,
[29:51] let's say, the pools go out in the high
[29:53] schools, the school district doesn't
[29:55] want to pay for them there, they want to
[29:56] partner up and put them in at the
[29:58] community rec center, we want to make
[30:00] sure there's space for that moving
[30:01] forward.
[30:05] And again, looking at the south side,
[30:07] we're throwing a dart somewhere kind of
[30:09] between Nibley and Hyrum there. And uh
[30:12] we're looking at about 46% of the county
[30:15] population within a 15 minute drive. Um
[30:18] as you put the two of these together,
[30:21] you hit 85% of the county within that 15
[30:24] minute drive time.
[30:26] And so um there's a couple of sort of
[30:29] east-west, north-south extremities that
[30:32] are outside of it, but generally good
[30:35] access and accessibility.
[30:41] And so here
[30:43] we like this option for a couple of
[30:46] reasons. It has the potential to serve
[30:48] the entire county
[30:50] to an effective level.
[30:53] Right? There are equal amenities that
[30:55] are kind of distributed within the
[30:57] county, so everybody has access to
[31:00] gymnasiums, indoor turf, some level of
[31:02] aquatics. And it's it's that Goldilocks
[31:05] solution, right? It's
[31:08] of course more expensive than the one
[31:10] facility, less expensive than the three
[31:12] facilities,
[31:14] um but operationally it's something that
[31:15] feels like it might be attainable. And
[31:17] we'll look at the finances here in a
[31:19] little bit.
[31:20] Uh again, we haven't finalized the site,
[31:23] so that's something that would be an
[31:24] ongoing conversation on these.
[31:27] And then of course facility option
[31:28] three, this one was um
[31:32] for a minute we were really excited
[31:34] about option one because it's so
[31:36] cost-effective. And as we sort of
[31:38] fleshed out option one, it became
[31:41] apparent again that some folks might
[31:42] feel disenfranchised by that one
[31:44] facility. And so, we went to the two
[31:46] facilities, but in that conversation
[31:48] about one we said, "If there was a
[31:50] facility kind of between Logan and North
[31:53] Logan,
[31:54] and then we move the northern one up to
[31:57] Smithfield because Smithfield is seeing
[31:59] some potential pressures from the
[32:00] district that over time they might not
[32:03] be able to continue to operate in the
[32:05] way they have been in the past." Um if
[32:07] we moved a new facility into Smithfield,
[32:10] we did another one kind of on the north
[32:11] end of Logan, and we did a third one on
[32:13] the south side of the valley in that
[32:15] sort of Nibley-Hyrum zone, could that
[32:18] meet the needs of the county? And from
[32:20] an accessibility perspective, the answer
[32:23] is absolutely yes. So,
[32:26] um
[32:26] you guys did see all of the floor plans.
[32:29] So, the center one would be the one
[32:31] that's in the center, kind of in that
[32:33] Logan-North Logan, and then you can see
[32:35] the the north and south up flanking it
[32:37] on either side. So, this one would be
[32:39] that three facility option.
[32:42] And of course, it does hit everybody
[32:45] really effectively. Um and in fact, a
[32:48] large percentage of the residents of the
[32:50] county are within a 10-minute drive
[32:51] time, which is awesome.
[32:54] But, it does add the a third facility to
[32:58] cost of construction, to cost of
[33:00] operations, to running and managing the
[33:02] pool, all of those various components.
[33:06] And so, ultimately, while this might be
[33:09] in 50 years what's right for Cache
[33:11] County or 30 years what's right for
[33:13] Cache County as you continue to grow,
[33:15] right now we feel like it is and we
[33:18] heard this very clearly from the
[33:19] steering committee. So, when I say we, I
[33:21] mean sort of the collective we, that
[33:23] it's too expensive, it's too big, it's
[33:25] too much of an ask for the community.
[33:29] As much as it hits everybody right where
[33:32] they need it, it's not quite hitting in
[33:35] the pocketbook, which really matters
[33:36] today.
[33:38] So, we did do a deep dive into costs and
[33:41] we brought in specialists. We have a
[33:44] portfolio of projects that we use as a
[33:46] cost basis, but we asked a construction
[33:48] company, uh Westland Construction Blackridge is
[33:53] their pre-design group. We asked them to
[33:56] put together some costs and I don't
[33:57] expect you to read this. I have it blown
[33:59] up on the next slide.
[34:00] But, we wanted
[34:02] a better idea of construction costs and
[34:03] we also asked them to be conscientious
[34:06] of what the facility might be and we've
[34:08] been talking about can we use
[34:10] pre-engineered buildings for a portion
[34:11] of it? Can we make it a little bit um
[34:17] sort of of the community. I don't know
[34:19] the right term. I was going to say sort
[34:20] of grittier, but maybe a little bit more
[34:23] appropriate for Cache County in a way
[34:24] that could be more cost-effective.
[34:26] And so, they looked at the three
[34:28] different facilities, the central, the
[34:30] south valley, and the north valley
[34:31] facilities, and put together a proposed
[34:34] construction cost. And then we
[34:37] um they their proposed construction
[34:38] costs are in 2026 dollars. So, after
[34:41] chatting with them, we then escalated
[34:43] that 4%. We're back into a nice 4% per
[34:46] year escalation cycle, which is exciting
[34:48] after the 2020s
[34:51] early 2020s um
[34:53] And so, we escalated that, and then we
[34:55] added soft cost. And soft costs are all
[34:58] of the things that are outside of the
[35:00] hard construction cost. So, it's um the
[35:02] design, if there's any site work,
[35:04] permitting, utility sort of work outside
[35:07] of the site, furniture, fixtures,
[35:09] equipment, all that extra kind of cost
[35:11] that goes into a facility. Um we had
[35:13] been carrying 28% soft cost because we
[35:16] weren't sure when the things were going
[35:17] to get built. So, we had a couple of
[35:19] years of escalation built into it. We've
[35:21] pulled that back to a 2020 um
[35:25] seven cost plus 20% soft cost, which is
[35:28] totally buildable for next year. If
[35:30] these go out another year again, we
[35:32] would just add a 4% per year escalation
[35:34] over the top of it.
[35:37] And so, right now with all three
[35:38] facilities, that's 168 million dollars
[35:41] that we would be asking for for the
[35:43] construction cost of the three
[35:45] facilities, not including the operation
[35:48] cost.
[35:49] And so, that's where everybody in the
[35:50] room kind of said, "Uh yeah."
[35:55] "Too big." And so, if we look at the
[35:57] option two with the North and South
[35:59] facility, that brings it down to just
[36:01] over a hundred million dollars. So
[36:03] again, it feels like it's a more
[36:05] attainable upfront cost. And we'll look
[36:07] at the bond impacts here in just a
[36:09] second.
[36:12] And then for operational cost, uh we
[36:15] have a partner that we work with that
[36:17] does recreation centers all over the
[36:18] country. And so, Ballard and King has
[36:21] been helping us with the operational
[36:23] cost assumptions and impact.
[36:25] And so again, we've been looking at that
[36:28] sort of market penetration of a max of
[36:30] 15% but what would it look like if we're
[36:32] down as low as 10% in memberships? Um
[36:36] and we looked at
[36:38] revenues and expenditures after
[36:40] construction. So, it's based off of sort
[36:41] of a 2029 dollars for staffing and for
[36:44] expenses.
[36:48] Um looking at again 7 days a week, 50
[36:53] open 50 weeks a year or closed only on
[36:56] holidays.
[36:57] Um and you'll see that 5 or 6:00 a.m. to
[37:00] 9:00 or 10:00 p.m. Those those early
[37:02] mornings and later evenings are are
[37:04] pretty desired hours.
[37:10] This is the membership that basis. Now,
[37:13] again, if you think about if you
[37:15] remember we're looking at this in 2029
[37:17] dollars. So, these are average
[37:18] memberships today in facilities across
[37:20] Utah. So, that is again a little bit
[37:22] conservative on the
[37:25] um cost for memberships and admissions.
[37:29] And so, if we look at option one, option
[37:31] two, and option three revenues, we're at
[37:34] uh just under 3 million dollars in
[37:36] revenue for option one. Yeah.
[37:39] >> Would you go back a slide?
[37:40] >> Of course.
[37:41] >> So, on the monthly membership, just in
[37:43] my mind, if I'm a household of four,
[37:47] two adults, that's 50 bucks, two youth,
[37:50] that's 40. So, plus my tax dollars that
[37:53] I'm being charged
[37:55] >> You would have that household of 50
[37:57] plus your tax dollars.
[38:00] >> [snorts]
[38:00] >> So, you
[38:00] >> So, no matter how big the household is?
[38:02] >> Yeah, usually caps up to like up to four
[38:05] children or something then beyond that
[38:07] it's a nominal
[38:08] amount per
[38:09] >> So, when you said in your survey, you
[38:11] talked about $20 that people are willing
[38:14] to pay,
[38:15] where does that push that if you're
[38:16] talking two facilities?
[38:19] >> So, that dollar doesn't change.
[38:21] Households
[38:21] >> are only willing to pay and we're using
[38:24] the $15 a month number.
[38:26] And so the question is how many
[38:28] households are contributing to that and
[38:29] what is the sort of tax impact of that
[38:32] contribution? And that was the big
[38:34] question and the concern with option
[38:37] three is the cost was so high and we
[38:38] only have so many dollars. There's no
[38:40] way financially we think we can get that
[38:44] to be within the realm.
[38:45] >> And if you bought a membership you could
[38:46] use either facility.
[38:47] >> Correct.
[38:49] >> So how long would the tax increase go or
[38:52] would it ever drop off?
[38:53] >> So typically bond amounts are or bonds
[38:56] are for 20 to 30 years. This one has
[38:58] been calculated looking at a 20-year
[39:00] bond period. And then it would be up to
[39:04] the county
[39:05] to determine at that point if you do a a
[39:08] truth in taxation and continue that
[39:10] investment or if you let it drop off.
[39:19] And so again the revenues are about 3
[39:22] million for option one, 3.8 for options
[39:25] for option two and 4.6 for option three.
[39:28] So we do get some increased revenue.
[39:30] They're closer to home. They're more
[39:31] attainable. They're a little bit less
[39:33] crowded in each one. People want to use
[39:35] them, but there's not a big leap that
[39:38] you see between the three options.
[39:43] Uh you do see a big staff increase
[39:45] between between the three options.
[39:48] Um
[39:49] and with that staff increase you do see
[39:52] an operational cost leap. And so it's
[39:55] really option three is adding option one
[39:57] and option two together because you have
[40:00] all three of those facilities, the
[40:01] staffing for all three, the utility
[40:03] bills for all three, etc. Um and you do
[40:07] have a capital improvement replacement
[40:09] fund that would need to be applied to
[40:10] all three buildings. So there is an
[40:12] increased cost of operations that comes
[40:15] from growing from one to two and again
[40:18] from two to three.
[40:21] Lifeguards are a big
[40:23] uh staffing challenge for facilities.
[40:27] And so again, uh looking at option one,
[40:30] you can probably break even if not make
[40:32] money with option one if it were really
[40:34] well programmed.
[40:37] Um but again, we feel like it's not
[40:39] hitting all the community members where
[40:41] they are.
[40:42] Option two, it does require a subsidy,
[40:45] um but not nearly the subsidy that
[40:47] option three requires because of the
[40:49] staffing impact and the revenue increase
[40:51] isn't quite as impactful across those
[40:53] three.
[40:55] Uh there was also a conversation amongst
[40:57] the steering committee to see if there
[40:58] would be an opportunity to allocate some
[41:01] of the reps tax to cover the operational
[41:03] expenses and if that's something that
[41:06] could be viable to help reduce the
[41:08] capital or the upfront bond costs as
[41:10] well.
[41:14] And so looking at bond impacts and this
[41:16] is where I have to apologize, the
[41:18] holiday weekend got in the way. We do
[41:20] not have final numbers from Science &
[41:22] Engineering.
[41:22] So we have uh sort of rough order of
[41:25] magnitude from the information that they
[41:27] have shared with us to date, but if we
[41:29] look at option two as the potential
[41:32] recommended option, um we would want to
[41:35] make sure that they're built for the
[41:38] immediate needs with space to expand. Um
[41:41] and while they're still working on bond
[41:42] impacts, we anticipate it would be
[41:44] between 155
[41:46] and 165 a household for a countywide
[41:51] bond impact.
[41:57] » So how much is that a month? I'm I'm
[41:59] trying to do the
[41:59] >> So that is $180 is $15 a month.
[42:02] >> Okay. So it's less than $15
[42:04] >> than $15 a month. Yep.
[42:07] And again, that's just for the
[42:08] construction cost. We've sort of
[42:10] excluded that operational cost. That
[42:12] operational cost added like a dollar or
[42:14] two dollars a month, something like
[42:15] that.
[42:16] >> Included it?
[42:16] >> Yeah.
[42:18] Or a year, excuse me. It was a It was a
[42:19] pretty minimal amount.
[42:26] That's the end of the presentation.
[42:28] >> [laughter]
[42:29] >> A whirlwind of information.
[42:33] » What questions do you have? What is
[42:36] So, you mentioned Hansen facility.
[42:38] >> Yeah.
[42:41] >> So, now we're talking government
[42:44] competing against a private entity or
[42:46] what? Have you considered that? I'm just
[42:48] wondering I mean, we used them as a
[42:50] question.
[42:51] >> Yeah.
[42:52] >> And yet, they're private. And
[42:54] >> Can we ask Glenn now?
[42:55] >> Yeah, I think Ned Logan is
[42:58] They Yeah.
[42:59] >> And admittedly, what we typically see is
[43:03] when community recreation centers are
[43:05] built in communities, engagement in
[43:08] health and fitness activities across
[43:10] facilities rises.
[43:12] What people often do is they go and they
[43:15] join their community rec center and they
[43:17] discover they like something, but the
[43:19] rec center isn't quite maybe robust
[43:21] enough for their CrossFit needs or their
[43:24] spinning class. And then they go and
[43:25] perhaps join the local one down the
[43:27] street that meets that need. Or they,
[43:30] like we saw, go to the recreation center
[43:33] for their kids to engage in whatever
[43:35] those programs are and then they go to
[43:37] this other one over here. Or the kids
[43:38] become super excited about volleyball
[43:41] and again, outgrow the community rec
[43:43] options and go and engage in a
[43:45] competitive volleyball program down the
[43:46] street. So, we don't typically see
[43:49] community rec as detrimental. In fact,
[43:51] it's typically beneficial to the
[43:53] community
[43:55] and private sports and recreation
[43:57] programs.
[44:02] » What else?
[44:05] So, is there enough space around the
[44:07] Hansen complex to
[44:10] >> We did do a test fit and yes, there is
[44:12] enough space. It would require some
[44:14] shared parking agreements with the
[44:15] school district again, which we think
[44:17] would be a good complimentary
[44:19] hours of use component, but there's
[44:21] physically enough space for a facility
[44:23] there, yeah.
[44:23] >> And and I think believe the county owns
[44:25] some of that.
[44:31] » Yeah, the the steering committee
[44:32] meetings are
[44:35] robust
[44:37] >> [laughter]
[44:37] >> and circular in many times depending on
[44:41] who's at the meeting and what um
[44:44] opinions they have and so it's been a
[44:45] little frustrating, but I think I think
[44:48] that we've been able to get a lot of
[44:50] good information to you guys
[44:51] [clears throat]
[44:52] and Whitney's done a great job of
[44:53] guiding.
[44:55] >> And it's been hard, right? Because and
[44:57] we we hear that our steering committee
[44:59] is made up of the cities that represent
[45:01] the residents within this county and
[45:03] within the community. And they want to
[45:05] do what's right for their citizens. And
[45:08] so the closer to home, the more
[45:10] accessible that is for each and every
[45:12] one of those constituents that they
[45:14] represent, the better.
[45:15] And so it has been a challenge in trying
[45:17] to like find that balance between what's
[45:20] the right close to home and what's the
[45:22] right accessible attainable amount to
[45:24] hit everybody in a way that it feels
[45:26] like it's both community rec, but it
[45:29] also county wide rec at the same time.
[45:33] >> So, if I can ask
[45:35] you as part of the steering committee,
[45:38] how do we inform or educate our public
[45:42] about all the things that are coming to
[45:43] a head as far as taxes
[45:46] and coming down?
[45:48] When I look at what was proposed from
[45:49] the fire district, the unincorporated
[45:52] part of the county is
[45:54] going to be seeing an increase.
[45:56] >> Quite a bit.
[45:56] just for fire and the
[45:59] unincorporated county is still going to
[46:01] be taxed if we did a recreation center,
[46:03] but yet they're the ones who are farther
[46:04] away from it.
[46:05] >> Exactly. We we talked about those things
[46:07] and that that's a difficult um part of
[46:09] the conversation, Nolan. And typically,
[46:13] one of one of the things that was
[46:14] brought up by and I can't remember who
[46:15] it was that brought this up, but
[46:17] typically when we're going to put
[46:18] something on a on a bond election, you
[46:21] want to give yourselves at least 6
[46:22] months to educate the public and to make
[46:25] sure everyone understands and ask
[46:26] questions and kind of build up that PR
[46:30] piece. And if we if we voted if if
[46:33] something was brought to the council if
[46:34] the steering committee comes up with a
[46:35] proposal that they want us to bring to
[46:37] the council and say, "Would the seven of
[46:39] you vote to put it on the the ballot?"
[46:42] We would have none we'd have like just a
[46:45] few months.
[46:46] Very little time. So, there's there's
[46:48] that component that might make it less
[46:50] successful. Um my fear and has been all
[46:54] along is that you put it to a countywide
[46:56] vote and it's 49 to 51.
[47:00] But yet, we're still going to force
[47:01] those other 49% of the people to pay the
[47:03] same taxes. So, there's a lot of things
[47:05] to consider as we as we look at what's
[47:08] fair, what's best for the whole county.
[47:11] Um
[47:12] there is just multifaceted. There's just a lot of different parts to
[47:16] that conversation. But um
[47:18] the ultimate decision about what goes on
[47:21] the ballot will come to the council.
[47:23] That's that's our decision. Um
[47:26] at the end. So, hopefully
[47:28] and I don't know, you know, Lindsay's
[47:30] here. She's been involved from the
[47:31] beginning. There's
[47:33] We don't want to put If you put
[47:35] something on the ballot and then it
[47:36] fails, does that affect the ability for
[47:38] other communities to do something for
[47:40] their community because there's this
[47:42] overriding thought that we don't want
[47:44] recreation in our county? Um
[47:48] and
[47:48] >> that was Mark's point.
[47:50] >> Yeah.
[47:50] >> About libraries.
[47:52] >> Right. Yeah, the
[47:53] >> Yeah.
[47:54] >> We hear over and over again that
[47:56] >> voted
[47:56] >> the citizens voted down the light county
[47:57] wide library, but that was, you know, 15
[48:00] years ago.
[48:00] >> Yeah. A lot.
[48:02] But it still has repercussions.
[48:03] >> But we always point to that as a reason
[48:05] not to do anything.
[48:06] >> Yep.
[48:09] » So that'd be a very big concern, I
[48:10] think, with any any other new
[48:14] county wide effort.
[48:16] >> When does the steering committee meet
[48:17] next?
[48:18] >> It would be nice if there was a way to
[48:21] conduct the vote and read the results
[48:24] because I think
[48:26] we may well have a situation where a
[48:29] community
[48:30] uh like North Logan said, we we really
[48:33] do want this and we're at 55% and we
[48:37] want it.
[48:38] Um
[48:40] that may lend itself to setting up
[48:43] something different than county wide.
[48:47] But same thing with Logan
[48:49] and
[48:50] trying to lure my entire county into
[48:54] participating with it
[48:56] may make it unattractive
[49:00] to a community.
[49:01] That's the war back and forth between
[49:06] Logan's desire to have it in Logan
[49:09] and whether it gets voted one way or the
[49:13] other but with the location.
[49:16] It it's interesting to me that I think
[49:18] the city leaderships are far more
[49:21] interested in that issue than the
[49:23] citizens are. The citizens travel across
[49:27] city boundaries all the time to get what
[49:29] they want.
[49:33] » Yeah, that's that's hard, too.
[49:36] >> Well, the travel time is puzzling to me
[49:37] cuz I live in Mount Sterling and I drive
[49:39] to the south end of Logan to work every
[49:41] day and it takes me more than 20
[49:42] minutes.
[49:45] So yes, in the study it says 20 minutes
[49:47] or less and so
[49:50] I'm thinking of
[49:51] >> Our traffic models aren't up to date.
[49:53] >> Yeah.
[49:54] >> Well, it could be different in different
[49:55] times of day, too. It's like an average
[49:58] or whatever.
[49:58] >> I'm coming in at 6:30 in the morning.
[50:00] >> It should be okay. Okay, our traffic
[50:02] models are not up to date.
[50:05] So, June 12th is our next steering
[50:07] committee meeting.
[50:08] >> Okay.
[50:10] Maybe to Nolan's point, would you put up
[50:12] the
[50:14] drive time
[50:15] chart, at least the
[50:18] Well, I think any one of them will work,
[50:20] just for the question. But yeah, we
[50:22] could
[50:23] probably go to option two, numbers.
[50:27] » [clears throat]
[50:29] >> So, you know, we're looking at we're
[50:30] saying anything in red is 20 minutes
[50:33] >> or more.
[50:35] How much more? I mean, if we added
[50:37] another thing at 25
[50:39] >> do that for you.
[50:40] >> You know, is that a pink for
[50:43] 95%
[50:45] of the population?
[50:47] >> Probably.
[50:48] >> So, it I mean, it's you know, we're
[50:50] saying in that scenario, 30 minutes
[50:53] everyone that lives in the county minus
[50:56] somewhere up Logan Canyon
[50:58] is within 30 minutes or less of the of
[51:01] one of the two facilities.
[51:02] >> And and some of the comments that I have
[51:04] heard, people that live in mostly in the
[51:07] Nibley or Hyrum South area, they they
[51:11] love the North Logan North Logan has
[51:12] such a robust great programs. There's
[51:14] like if you've got four kids involved in
[51:17] soccer and you're driving to North Logan
[51:19] to get to practices multiple times a
[51:21] week. They're just so tired of that
[51:23] drive time. But but also
[51:26] they have really good programs and
[51:28] they've and they do come. Like and and
[51:30] Mayor Peterson has the data to show how
[51:33] many people from the valley come and
[51:35] take advantage of our programs. So,
[51:37] that's hard to that's hard to quantify
[51:40] that sometimes.
[51:45] Okay, does everyone feel like you have
[51:47] enough information about the
[51:50] kind of where the conversations have
[51:52] been, where they're going, so that you
[51:54] can think about that and maybe talk to
[51:55] your constituents when you have
[51:57] opportunities to be around them and
[52:00] get a better idea of when something is
[52:02] brought to us to decide whether we
[52:05] agree to put it on the ballot.
[52:07] Um
[52:08] >> How do we educate I mean, I know there's
[52:11] the fire district. I don't know about
[52:13] any
[52:14] other things, but our budget, are we
[52:16] going to be able to maintain without a
[52:18] tax increase this year and when we sit
[52:20] and look at our budget, I'm just saying
[52:22] all of the things that are lining up, I
[52:24] want the citizens to have
[52:27] ample knowledge of saying, "Yeah, we
[52:29] voted this in and then holy cow, 3
[52:31] months later when they start seeing
[52:33] their taxes go up, they're going to be I
[52:34] wasn't aware of this." That's what I'm
[52:36] trying to understand is
[52:38] how we let
[52:41] every citizen know, consider fire
[52:43] district, consider library, consider
[52:45] this because I've sat through two tax
[52:48] truth and taxation meetings and they get
[52:51] rallied just over 12 bucks.
[52:53] >> Um one thing that I mean, this is
[52:55] something that we need to consider and
[52:58] Keegan has really been pushing this. We
[52:59] have a public relations
[53:02] committee. I think Mark's the chairman
[53:03] of it. Um I think we need to be very
[53:07] robust. We've never met. Um I think we
[53:09] need to think about those things. How
[53:11] can we get out of here?
[53:13] >> of $0?
[53:14] >> Yeah.
[53:15] But how can we get out ahead of that
[53:17] with our website, with our messaging,
[53:20] you know, that I I think that whatever
[53:22] happens, whatever we do with the fire
[53:24] district, how we end up with that or if
[53:26] this comes to a ballot, um I think that
[53:29] public education is is huge and um and
[53:33] it's hard. I know that, you know, people
[53:35] are busy taking care of their families
[53:37] and earning a living and they
[53:38] to to be an informed citizen takes a lot
[53:41] of effort and a lot of people don't know
[53:43] where to look for they'd like to know
[53:44] more but they don't know where I get I
[53:46] get that all the time. How can I find
[53:47] out more about what's going on or who's
[53:49] running and so I think if we can have
[53:52] those discussions. I don't know what the
[53:53] answer is but I think we can do we're
[53:55] not doing anything right now and I think
[53:57] we can do something
[53:58] towards that.
[53:59] >> So help me understand this also if we're
[54:02] doing two facilities which you say would
[54:05] meet everything
[54:07] does the county take the role of
[54:09] administration on that or where is the
[54:11] role of administration going to be for
[54:12] those two?
[54:14] >> No.
[54:16] >> What we've heard is all they want from
[54:18] the county is the money.
[54:21] >> [laughter]
[54:22] >> There there
[54:23] >> Imagine that.
[54:25] >> Yeah. There there are very good people
[54:28] in this valley that run very good
[54:29] recreation programs that could staff
[54:31] those facilities.
[54:32] >> What we're really talking is mostly
[54:33] having the cities operated but but
[54:37] primarily use the county to raise
[54:41] money
[54:42] >> to build the facilities.
[54:42] Am I correct
[54:45] with that Lindsay?
[54:46] >> That's correct. I think the idea is it's
[54:48] not just about using the county's money.
[54:50] It's it's providing a service to the
[54:53] county residents. So it's not we're not
[54:55] just saying give us your money cuz we
[54:57] want to have a fantastic facility in
[54:59] Rifle and we're saying let's extend the
[55:01] extremely efficient operation of our
[55:03] recreation programs into this arena that
[55:06] would benefit the entire valley.
[55:11] There was also talk of phasing.
[55:13] >> Fair adult. You're not suggesting that
[55:15] the county
[55:17] form a recreation department and operate
[55:20] these facilities. What we're talking
[55:22] about is the county bonding for the
[55:24] money and then basically turning it over
[55:27] to the cities to operate the facilities.
[55:30] >> Maybe they have some kind of contract.
[55:32] >> idea that the
[55:34] cities that
[55:36] our our tax base would be used to build
[55:40] it
[55:42] and and hopefully we'd have some wraps
[55:44] money to maintain the facility, but the
[55:47] operational expenses
[55:49] would rest upon the cities.
[55:52] And that's
[55:53] whether that's practical or not and how
[55:56] much rest on which cities,
[55:58] I don't think that's been fleshed out
[56:03] entirely as to which cities are going to
[56:06] take
[56:07] care of the operational
[56:09] part of this, but I've never heard
[56:11] anyone suggest that we're going to
[56:13] operate the facilities.
[56:15] >> So, in one of the slides you talked
[56:17] about wraps, but there were numbers in
[56:19] red. Is that what you were saying wraps
[56:21] should contribute?
[56:22] >> That is the operational shortfall of the
[56:25] facility.
[56:26] >> Without wraps?
[56:27] >> Correct.
[56:28] >> It was 11 It was 1.1 million.
[56:30] >> The cost of the bond, the cost of the
[56:32] bond and the servicing of the bond would
[56:35] come out of property taxes levied by the
[56:39] county.
[56:39] >> Correct.
[56:40] >> But but then we would be asking Well,
[56:41] right right there, option two, 1.1
[56:43] million from wraps, right?
[56:45] >> Yes, so that is the amount of dollars
[56:47] that would be required to maintain full
[56:49] operations of the two facilities. The
[56:51] question is, how could some of it if any
[56:55] come out of wraps? And if so, great. If
[56:58] not, you can wrap that full amount into
[57:01] the bond
[57:02] to cover that delta.
[57:03] >> And she said it would only be a dollar
[57:05] or two a year.
[57:05] >> A couple of dollars a year, yeah.
[57:08] >> So, has it been explored totally that it
[57:12] can't be privately funded? Cuz was the
[57:15] Hanson privately funded at one time or
[57:18] how did that work?
[57:20] >> Um sorry, privately funding recreation
[57:23] centers?
[57:24] >> Uh-huh. Well, the the Hanson
[57:26] specifically,
[57:28] the Hanson complex.
[57:30] >> That one was privately built.
[57:34] And then ultimately
[57:36] North Logan City operated it after
[57:39] having it be privately operated. And
[57:41] then North Logan took that over
[57:43] and doubled the usage and the revenue in
[57:46] a year. And so then the Hansen family
[57:49] gifted it
[57:52] >> But you didn't ever pay for it, just the
[57:54] operation part of it.
[57:56] >> Right. That's right.
[57:58] >> And there may be opportunities for
[58:00] private partnerships once we get a if we
[58:02] said here's what we are comfortable
[58:04] with, here's what it's going to cost,
[58:05] let's start looking for some private
[58:07] funding or even some state funding
[58:09] possibly.
[58:10] Like there could be other options. We
[58:12] just haven't
[58:13] >> The RAPZ was just one suggestion.
[58:15] >> Just one suggestion that there is is
[58:17] recreation art parks and parks and zoos.
[58:20] So it's kind of what the and people are
[58:22] already paying that without it coming
[58:24] out extra out of their pockets. That amount they're already paying it by
[58:27] going out to eat and by the different
[58:29] things that fund the RAPZ tax.
[58:31] >> Well back to it's still taxpayer money.
[58:33] >> It is taxpayer money but they're already
[58:35] paying it.
[58:36] It's it wouldn't be an extra. Yes, it
[58:38] wouldn't be an increase.
[58:40] >> Back to your example of 49 and 51.
[58:43] >> Mhm.
[58:43] >> I could see if we did pull RAPZ in that would
[58:48] upset maybe some of the outlying
[58:49] communities who are relying on that RAPZ
[58:51] to help their
[58:53] >> Yeah.
[58:53] >> recreation.
[58:54] >> Yeah. I don't know that it's a viable it
[58:56] was just a thought that that might be
[58:58] something if if it was a big portion of
[59:00] the county that really wanted recreation
[59:02] and that they could have some of the
[59:03] operations paid for without incre- any
[59:05] tax increase, they may say yes, we want
[59:08] recreation
[59:09] overall and that's, you know, that would
[59:11] be something that would just have to be
[59:13] it's just one thought.
[59:15] One option.
[59:21] Okay.
[59:22] That was a very informative hour. Thank
[59:24] you, Whitney, so much for cut You've
[59:26] come to Cache Valley so many times.
[59:27] appreciate you.
[59:28] >> It's a good thing I like it up here.
[59:29] >> [laughter]
[59:29] >> I've heard that there's some really
[59:31] phenomenal bread that comes out of Hyrum
[59:34] on Friday mornings. So, we're going to
[59:36] have to at some point re- do our entire
[59:38] schedule so I can be here at 7:00 a.m.
[59:39] on a Friday morning.
[59:40] >> Perfect. Okay, does anyone have any last
[59:43] questions for Whitney before we
[59:45] finish up this meeting?
[59:47] Okay.
[59:48] >> Thank you all.
[59:49] >> All right, thank you.
[59:50] >> Okay, that ends our um
[59:53] workshop meeting. We will begin our
[59:55] council meeting at 5:00.
[59:58] There is and there are sandwiches,
[1:00:01] right, Andrew?
[1:00:02] >> Yes, ma'am.